Televised federal trials long overdue

Sunday

Jul 21, 2013 at 6:00 AM

Dianne Williamson

Thomas Foley is among the many witnesses who have provided riveting testimony in the trial of Whitey Bulger.

Last month, the retired head of the state police told a federal jury that his investigations of the former mob boss were consistently undercut by an FBI that “put a higher priority on protecting their informants than they did actually looking at public safety.”

The Bulger trial not only sheds light on an alleged ruthless killer, but a corrupt government agency. The public should be allowed to witness such testimony, just as it should be able to see the face of bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev other than on the questionable cover of Rolling Stone magazine. But it can’t. And Foley is among those who believe it’s time for a change.

Unlike state courts in America, television cameras are banned in federal courts. That’s why, for example, we were subjected to a Boston television station announcing on the day Tsarnaev was arraigned that we were seeing “the face of the Boston bombing suspect for the first time since his arrest” — and the screen showed a bad artist’s rendering of a mop-headed teen who could have been anyone.

Really? What’s next — a white-haired mime hissing silently at Kevin Weeks? Congress must change the rules. This is 2013 America, land of transparency, just about everywhere except inside a federal courtroom.

“I think its time has come,” said Foley, of Worcester, when asked if federal trials should be televised. “I don’t see any reason why not at this stage... I’ve had a lot of people in the past six weeks saying they wish (the Bulger trial) was on television so they could watch it.”

Granted, with the complicity of cable news and the rabid Nancy Grace, many high-profile trials have morphed into infotainment and the ultimate reality TV fix, complete with photogenic stars such as Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias. And, yes, I would have loved to have witnessed Bulger and his former protégé, Kevin Weeks, cursing at each other in prime time. It would have made for great television.

But federal trials provide more than entertainment. They’re a civics lesson and a piece of history. They show us the best and the worst of our justice system. They teach us about the legal process. People have a right to know how their government works, and how it sometimes doesn’t.

The reasons given for the federal blackout don’t wash. Most often, the “intimidating effect” of cameras on witnesses and jurors is cause for concern. But witnesses typically have more on their minds than cameras, and jurors aren’t shown in televised trials.

“A lot of the concern is that people will play to the camera,” said Foley. “In my experience, I haven’t seen that. That’s the least the witnesses think about. Personally, I’m more concerned about my testimony and the questions I’m asked, rather than who’s watching and listening.”

In the Bulger trial, the families of his alleged victims must take a day off from work and trek to the courtroom for a long-awaited glimpse of the man they believe murdered their loved one. When Tsarnaev stands trial, we won’t see the face or hear the voice of a man who allegedly wreaked destruction on a city. How is justice served by keeping this trial under wraps?

Cameras are being used under a three-year pilot program in 14 federal courts. It’s a good start toward making the legal system accessible and accountable.

State trials have been televised for years, and while defendants such as George Zimmerman can spark intense debate, the sky has yet to fall. It’s high time the federal courthouses stop making lame excuses, and join the 21st century.